312 VETOES

only by the frustration facing the industry which the bill seeks to
control.

As Chief Executive it is my duty to see, as far as possible, that the
State government, which includes all its various agencies, functions
efficiently and effectively under laws which not only protect the inter-
ested citizens but which preserve their rights. I believe that the effects
of this particular bill would be in conflict with this principle. I do not
believe that the Department of Assessments and Taxation could carry
out the intent of this legislation in an efficient and effective manner
under the language as contained in this bill.

Since this bill gives the Department of Assessments and Taxation
no enforcement authority, I am repelled by the thought that many
reputable men and women who are engaged in a perfectly legitimate
phase of the economic life of this State would be denied the basic right
to be regulated in their business affairs through orderly administrative
processes where clear guides and standards and an opportunity to be
heard before a properly constituted agency or other authority is guar-
anteed by a well-defined statute. Instead, the bill provides for enforce-
ment only through criminal processes with the threat of extreme
punitive provisions for any non-compliance however slight. This, to
my mind, constitutes policing and not regulation, and I find it difficult
to sanction this type of control over this or any other legitimate
industry in our State.

It should be noted that many of the complaints which have come
to my attention have been from persons out of this State whose busi-
ness has apparently been solicited by means of false or misleading
advertisement in their respective States. Much of this false and mis-
leading advertising has led individuals to believe that these Maryland
associations are insured either by the Federal government or by an
approved State agency when, in fact, this is often untrue. Naturally,
this type of advertisement is undesirable and should be controlled.
However, this legislation contains no remedy for curbing such
advertising.

I would like to call to your attention the provisions of the bill which
require directors and officers of an association to have been citizens
of this State for at least two years prior to their selection. On the sur-
face, it would appear that as a result of such provision a non-resident
of the State of Maryland could not be an officer or a director of an
association in the State. I am advised that an association could easily
circumvent this provision of the Maryland law by incorporating in a
State other than Maryland and then establish branch offices in Mary-
land and operate as a non-resident corporation of the State of Mary-
land. By doing this, all of their officers and directors could be non-
residents of Maryland. Yet, a domestic association could have no non-
residents as officers or directors. This provision of the bill, to me,
appears to be easy to evade and, in fact, is discriminatory against
domestic associations.

I might say that there has been great temptation, advanced by some
of the proponents of the bill, that any law containing any semblance
of regulation is better than no law at all. The temptation of this argu-
ment is twofold in that the signing of this bill would quell the criticism
to which I have referred. I cannot in good conscience accept this argu-